So, I just watched the video of Perry Noble speaking at Unleashed ‘09. He had some really, really negative things to say about the missional and emerging church movements. In fact, negative isn’t even the correct term; judgmental is more fitting in this case. I wonder if anyone thinks Perry should focus more upon the things he is for rather than the things he is against? Just asking.
Here’s a quick hit list of things he said during the AM session of Unleashed (lifted from the Emergent Village Twitter)
Perry Noble says to the Emerging Church (very accurate paraphrase), “Emergents, sober up … or get saved. Come get me! Most of those guys are going to have to sober up before they do anything … Because of the Emerging Church movement hell will be more crowded. Emergents have sided with Satan in questioning the Word of God. Emergents have a problem with authority: Including the authority of Scripture. Emergents are a bunch of spoiled former church kids who have a problem with authority. All these guys watch on the Internet. The definition of missional: Nobody showing up, so we created a term to affirm our dysfunction.”
Wow! That’s a pretty broad and judgmental brush you are painting with Pastor Noble. I forgive you and love you anyway. It’s hard, I admit, but I do. Here’s a little something for you to consider: I was recently told to focus upon the things that our community stands for, rather than the things that we are against. I was told this because I went hard after theology (theological expressions) and certain images of God that we have roaming around in our heads. I heard and accepted that advice, in spite of my personal belief that we can and we should attack ideas, theologies, and images of God. I believe those things should be deconstructed and reconstructed regularly. I listened to the advice anyway. You, however, Pastor Noble went directly after people. I think that is as dysfunctional as it gets, especially in the context of Jesus’ Kingdom. So, I would simply pass the advice I received onto you: Why don;t you stay focused upon the things you are for rather than railing against those things you are against? Also, feel free to come after my theology or ideas or the image(s) of God roaming around in my head. I invite you to tackle those. In fact, I’d love to sit down and have a full-blown conversation about all of these things. Anytime, Perry.
That said, I have a few humble suggestions for the Emerging Church. Why do I have suggestions? Because I’m sick of hearing rants from guys like Perry. Ironically, it’s rants like Perry’s that caused me to recently rethink my own lukewarm position on the Emerging Church and “rejoin” it, with renewed passion. Why? Because if these – Emerging/Missional Church and Generic/NeoReformed Evangelicalism are the two ecclessiological choices in America today (and it seems so, unless you are Old Mainline Protestant or Catholic) then I will glady take my position with the Emerging tribe. In fact, I’ll take my position with the Emerging tribe because my failure to do so actually strengthens the other side and actively erodes the validity of a real alternative. It’s all about the availability of choice! Choice is still a good thing. And that’s how I see this all unfolding, in the long term.
That said, let’s back to my suggestions for the Emerging Church. I honestly think we have to do some things a bit different if we are going to remain a viable alternative in the future. What are these things? They can be summarized with one word: Organization. Can the Emerging Church – or Progressive Christianity – lean into serious organization just enough to let itself actually become a movement that results in thriving and growing local communities of faithful progressives? I think so. In fact, I presented this very question to our local church plant recently. I asked this question: “What is the difference between the Assemblies of God and The Center for Progressive Christianity?” One is huge; the other is small. One has influence; the other not so much. One has a worldview that doesn’t fit very well in the world we are actually living in (or the world we are continuously being introduced to); the other has a worldview that fits a bit better. So, why then is the AG so much bigger than the Center for Progressive Christianity? Organization.
For some odd reason, Progressives, Emergents, Religious Liberals, etc., have been very, very content with cutting off their own nose to spite their own face. Why do we do this? We can be organized and not become the very thing we reject! We can be a church of 2000 people and not become a fast-food-esque-mega-church! We can be missional and be attractive to a whole generation! We can grow and not become that!
We cannot, however, be influential or have influence if we do not grow locally. Movements are local; we need people to start a movement locally. We need people to join our movement if we are going to have any influence at all. We can’t be afraid to grow things.
So, these are my humble suggestions. I think if we agree with all of the above, and work and pray hard, then we will change the spiritual direction of this country and silence the criticism that guys like Perry levy against us. Consider these suggestions:
1. You wealthy religious progressives need to fund it. If you believe in this, and you have a boatload of money just sitting there in your shoebox, please think about the difference you could make in this country and our world, right now.
2. Make Emergent Village the flagship. Yep. I said it. It already is that, so just admit it and make it more intentional and functional. Then organize all of the tribes so that they can communicate and execute the shared mission locally.
3. Form an Emerging/Emergent Church Planting Network. This network would provide training, resources, collegiality, encouragement. Fund qualified church planters full-time for two years so they can build a community according to our overarching ethos and principles at the grassroots level (a proper alternative to Acts 29).
Those are my rough suggestions. I’m sure readers have suggestions of their own too! The big idea is this: Mobilize and empower people to communicate and execute the message at the grassroots level for the sake of building and growing accessible and thriving local communities that represent the Kingdom values we hold dear and proudly proclaim!
If we do that, how will they complain? That’s where we should invest our time, treasure, and talent. Let’s not get caught up in silly battles with the Perry Nobles of the world. Stay on script; move ahead.
Related posts:
Who is “Perry Noble,” and who cares?
Not this guy.
I am fairly confident that the very charge that Mr. Noble levies against Emergent is pretty close to what was said about Luther…
Why not organize? I think that’s a great question. Was just thinking how the relatively loose organization/ ambiguous status as an entity allows groups to openly identify with the movement. Look at the different kinds of hybrid-mergents popping up all over the place. Emergent thinking develops within faith traditions too, as much as it develops as its own thing.
I just taught a section on social organizations in my Intro to Sociology class. A characteristic of organizations is that they soon come to exist for self-perpetuation. I think the the Emerging Church wants to exist in such a way that it can constantly deconstruct itself. In this way, it remains constantly fluid. Defying definition, but also remaining open for others to define (and engage with).
[...] Ed Morrissey posted a noteworthy aricle today onHere’s a small snippetSo, I just watched the video of Perry Noble speaking at Unleashed ‘09. He had some really, really negative things to say about the missional and emerging church movements. [...]
The hyphen-movement is limited in so many ways. If that is our best effort, then we will not accomplish much. A new wineskin is necessary.
Also, I suppose one could look at organization as self-perpetuation, if that one fails to see that it’s not the self being perpetuated but rather the big ideas, principles, and over-arching ethos. These things need to be perpetuated by a group who is disciplined and self-aware enough to realize that it was never “about them” and will “never be about them.” It’s about the Kingdom we preach. That is worth perpetuating in a clear, articulate, purposeful, intentional, and productive manner. And the less hyphens, the better. :)
Emergent Village isn’t really the flagship of this larger phenomenon. It is more of a publishing/conference/communications agency that does PR for the movement. Organizing the diversity of what is happening under the Emergent label would be a profoundly bad idea.
And forming an Emergent Church Planting network would also be a bad idea. There are already funding agencies and church planting networks that do fine…I’m not sure how getting Emergent involved would be beneficial…at all. There are dozens and dozens of small alternatives to Acts 29. And more than that, a large percentage of new churches are planted with no funds at all.
Sorry this is the first time I’ve posted on your blog, and I’m going to disagree – so first I’ll say that I really appreciate your post and very much agree with your point that we should focus on things we are for, not that we are against. This is exactly what I was thinking as I listened to Noble’s random, disconnected, unfounded and inappropriate rant.
That being said, I pretty strongly disagree with your #1 suggestion that organization is what is needed in Emergent/ing churches. The main reason is that I see organization (I’m thinking of the CEO style and structure of leadership) as the primary reason modern churches are doing the damage they are. Such a drive for leadership and “success” is what creates and gives power to people like Perry Noble. The anti-leadership of the web is what gives power to people like you and me to respond to him. Modern-style leadership/organization is what leads to division, denominationalism, traditions and structures that can’t be changed and are outdated before they are even formed. IMO, they are exactly what is NOT needed for the next wave of Christianity (in America at least).
Better organization is certainly always helpful, but only if we know what the goal for which we are striving for is. And I would disagree that we can have 2,000 member churches that are achieving the goal of being genuine Christ-followers. I’m currently in a community that hovers around 15-25, and it feels like it’s getting too big.
IMO, we have to patiently re-draw and re-imagine what a Christian community should look like – and that process will be different and have a different result for many people. I don’t believe that all the usual standards for success should be used, such as sustainability, numbers (both in bodies and dollars), buildings and so-called “influence.” Perhaps a 21st cent. “successful” community is one that achieves it’s goals in a short period of time and then disbands?
Bottom line: we can’t yet call for more leadership from emergents because we are still figuring out what it really means to be emergent. We can’t organize if the goal is undetermined and still forming. The only type of leadership we know right now is modern and ultimately the opposite what emergent is all about.
Thanks for letting me drop in my two cents. Such is the organization of the future -
I am sad about the tone and generalizations and I have some respect for Perry. Wow. I do not think there really are two sides here to choose in Christianity–Emerging or Neo-Reformed-etc. I think that two polar opposites sell books and fill conferences, however.
What I see in addressing your organizational question has to do more with world view and personality than theology. Emergents really are who they are because they question. Megachurch pastors are who they are because they do not. Idealists verses pragmatists.
Pragmatists are not attracted to asking questions. They only ask “what works” while the idealists will ask “why” and therefore deconstruct.
My point is that in my personal experience I believe both are needed in each group–deeply. But, a pragmatist will be spit out of an Emergent meeting in a nanosecond just as question asking idealists are often pushed out of megachurch circles.
Shoot.. this could be a blog post! ;)
Wonder what people from the hyphen-movement would say about your comment? :P
Hey, Rich. I think the questions goes far deeper than “Idealism and Pragmatism.” Granted, most mega-church folk don;t question what they are doing because they think that just because a bunch of people are showing up something must be working correctly. I’d humbly suggest that a large group of people is indicative of nothing save a large group of people. So, I’d question the idea of pragmatics unless all that one is shooting for is a large group of people. Otherwise, how does one know what is really working and/or what the definition of success even is? If making converts is the definition of success, then you may be onto something; if making mature disciples who are prepared to minister in the real present and future world is the definition of success, then we may have a problem with the “Idealism vs. Pragmatism” approach to the situation.
Looking forward to your post!
Hello, Jesse! Welcome! And it is fine, your first post can be a disagreement. It’s all good.
Jesse, you wrote, “The main reason is that I see organization (I’m thinking of the CEO style and structure of leadership) as the primary reason modern churches are doing the damage they are.”
I’d disagree. The damage they are doing is not rooted in organization or leadership; it’s a product of bad theology and a clumsy worldview.
I think that after you wrote the above you really said something profound directly afterwards: “Better organization is certainly always helpful, but only if we know what the goal for which we are striving for is.” I think our theology and worldview point us in the direction – if not completely inform us of – our goals, for good or for ill. Do we have to be disciplined and intentional about focusing upon the goals birthed from our theology and worldview. Yes! We all can veer left or right. I think that’s why continued conversation and accountability to the entire community is important. Staying the course is a community-wide event! That said, nixing organization in the name of trying to stay the course or defining end-goals is the wrong way to go. It’s counter-productive because nixing organization in the name of end-goals is an act that will totally separate us from those end-goals. We won’t achieve or accomplish anything, except talking about achieving and accomplishing something.
You wrote, “And I would disagree that we can have 2,000 member churches that are achieving the goal of being genuine Christ-followers. I’m currently in a community that hovers around 15-25, and it feels like it’s getting too big.”
Yeah. Don’t know what to say to you about this one, Jesse. I disagree completely. I’d say that Mars Hill (Michigan) would too (not that they are any sort of template). A group of 15-25 is fine, if that’s what feeds your community in its context. Personally, I feel that while a group of 15-25 is wonderful for the spiritual needs of the people within the group, the bigger systemic issues in which you are situated go on unimpeded/unchallenged because of the serious lack of influence that a group that size can claim. Change follows people movements; people movements need a bunch of people. That said, I’d see great value in a group of 15-25 people who were willing to be organized enough to join a network of 2000 groups of 15-25 people in the name of real influence that leads to real change. That sort of network would require serious organization, would it not? And within that network there may be groups as large as 2000. Would this approach suit you, or do all groups have to be 15-25 people and completely autonomous to be authentic?
Finally, Jesse, you wrote the following: “Bottom line: we can’t yet call for more leadership from emergents because we are still figuring out what it really means to be emergent.”
This is unfortunate because as we have this online conversation Mark Driscoll is calling for 900 men to plant churches that look and sound just like his. I’d simply say this: We better get off our asses unless we want to simply hand over the country to the NeoReformed, Mark Driscoll disciples. I’ve experienced these sorts on the local level and shutter to think how the face of faith in this country will be changed if this happens without an alternative.
And that’s why I think progressives need to stop fighting every single battle and get to work on establishing local communities of faith that are dedicated to the principles and Gospel we hold dear. Acts chapter 29 doesn’t have to be written by one person.
Thanks, Jesse.
I hope they understand what I’m saying … It’s (the hyphens) not a bad thing, but it’s not as good as it could be either. That’s all I’m saying. I’ve heard of many stories – recently – of hyphens barely making it pass their credentialing boards (whatever that looks like in each denomination). I also know for a fact that the proclamation is muted in some circles and justified with the word “subversive.” I simply think that much more proclamation would happen and more productivity would follow freedom. That is all …
Times are calling for a larger alternative, not the continuation of a dozen small ones.
And I’ve planted/planting a church. Doing so with no funds is possible, but terribly, terribly difficult. It difficult with a subsidy! People who are gifted and called need support systems that include subsidy.
Mark, we can be so counter-cultural that we totally miss the culture and/or reaching people within the culture.
Is it deeper?
I know a few of these mega guys, btw. (I am recovering from years inside a huge place, btw) I really think there is sincerity in not just converting, but transforming people and our world. Its just a matter of what comes first and the theology of what salvation is.
If you read your response through this filter, it almost proves my point a bit when you say you question the idea of pragmatics. If an idea does not work, is it true? So, this is not as shallow an observation if you see that tension–world view in tension with theology and practice.
The ideal of discipleship (maturing believers to change their world and reach others) is a huge thrust, but only after reaching people first. Its a gather and then build, rather than build and gather. And, “it works” is what drives it.
I am so torn. Why? Because, I want a faith “that works” yet when deconstructing as I do and others do you sometimes are getting to what does not work and not focusing on what is working. Dan Kimball is making some reversals based on this line of thinking.
A thought: emergents need pragmatism–what works focus verses being tied together based on what doesn’t work.
Can I just chime in and say how refreshing it was to finally hear someone say that?
I’m new to your blog. Thank Jonathan Brink for the link. I’m perusing the archives now. I really appreciate what I’ve read so far. Thank you.
And by “say that” I meant:
PERRY NOBLE, DRISCOLL AND THE REST OF THEM ARE REDNECK RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN CLOWNS, ANYONE IN THE 21ST CENTURY THAT STILL THINKS THE BIBLE IS THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD, OR THAT ANY BOOK CAN EVEN ATTEMPT TO ENCOMPASS THE GOD THAT CREATED THIS UNIVERSE BY WAY OF EVOLUTION BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD IS INSANE. I GUESS THEY ALL SUPPORT THE 6 DAY CREATION STORY AND ADAM AND EVE AND THE FLOOD AS WELL!! LISTEN MAN THESE GUYS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN YOUNGER VERSIONS OF KEN COPELAND & JESSE DUPLANTS WEARING JEANS AND TALKING SLICK. THEY ARE PUNKS THAT ARE KEEPING THE PEOPLE THAT FOLLOW THEM LIKE CHILDREN IN FEAR. THANK GOD PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP, THESE GUYS WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS. A NEW CHRSITIAN REFORMATION IS FORMING PEOPLE. WITHOUT THESE ANCIENT DOGMAS THAT KEEP INSULTING PEOPLES INTELLIGENCE. THE TIMES ARE CHANGING GUYS,IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING IN NEW YORK.
I’m not an “emergent” person but was a little taken back that Perry would say things like that when judgemental of others who are reaching the lost is not his style. However, who ever NEW YORK is and your all caps rant is both arrogant and wrong. I can see your reason for being defensive, but just because you think it should be a certain way (and if it should) that does not mean it will happen.
I used to look at real legalistic Christains, like the KJV only / suit and tie kind and figure them to die out before long but they have not. Contemporary churches like NewSpring and North point will be around for a long time and I personaly believe they provide a healthy balance of ideologies and have are encouraging people to challenge their beliefs….that’s why they are non-denominations, no matter how big or small of a step you think that is.